Pages

Friday, June 29, 2012

The Clash of Extremisms

THE CLASH OF EXTREMISMS

Maryam Sakeenah

“Do not go to excesses in
your religion.” (The Quran, 4:171)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I remember the first time long ago I had listened to Dr.
Zakir Naik speak on extremism. I had been enthralled by the brilliant ‘turning
the tables’ logic with which he spoke refuting the charge of extremism against
Muslims: ‘Yes, Muslims are extremists in the sense that they are supposed to be
extremely good, extremely peace-loving, extremely honest, extremely kind etc.’
I remember how I had quoted it afterwards. Years later, I feel I have lost the
naive idealism. I miss now that juvenile conviction I had drawn from Dr. Naik’s
words.

In the long years of my association with various Islamic
groups, I have had quite the opposite thrown in my face. The spectre of extremism
lurks very really at the heart of contemporary Islamism.

To be fair, however, it has to be clarified that extremism
is not an exclusive enterprise of believers in religion. Extremist patterns of
thought are clearly decipherable both among the secular-liberals who see all
religion as regressive and among the religious who espouse extreme fringe
interpretations of religion, very often not warranted by their own sacred
texts. Both kind of extremists hold on to a dogmatic belief in the absolute rightness
of their own worldview in total opposition and exclusion to all others. This
rigid adherence may be a reaction to the pluralism and fluidity of postmodern
society where nothing seems to hold ground and there is no generally accepted transcendent
absolute truth to live by. Often, there are inherent contradictions at the core
of the extremist sensibility: the secular extremist for instance, while
believing in pluralism and tolerance, is convinced of the wrongness and
inferiority of all differing worldviews. Similarly, the religious extremist
very often betrays the essence of what he claims to believe in. The Quran says, “Be
steadfastly balanced witnesses for Allah
in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that you deal not justly.
Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty.” (The Noble Quran, 5:8)

Certainty is a human need, and as societies modernize and
become more pluralistic, certainty becomes harder to find as doubt and
scepticism of traditionally held ideas grows among the proliferation of
contending perspectives. This need to anchor oneself in what is believed to be universally
true is therefore intensified and stances harden. The subject takes comfort in
adherence to what gives him certainty and makes the universe meaningful for
him. In a diverse milieu where ideas struggle for ascendancy, this often
becomes fanatical adherence and grows exclusivist and at times even militant,
especially in the case of the religious extremist who takes cover under
religion to sanctify his ‘righteous anger’ against the degenerate out-group.
However, as Peter Berger states, the psychological profile of the dogmatic
secularist is remarkably similar to the religious extremist. While ostensibly being
averse to and rejecting each other, both actually thrive on the other’s
extremism. They seek justification of their extreme positions by citing the
unreasonable, degenerate and dangerous agenda of the other which cannot be left
to seek converts. They fan hatred and hostility through suspicion and
threat-perception, feed off one another and fuel each other in a vicious cycle
of provocation and reaction. Extremists of both the secular and the religious
kind work wonderfully well as cohorts.

In her article
‘Our Dogmatic Liberals’, Humeira Iqtedar takes on Pakistan’s (pseudo) liberal
elite: ‘The Islamists may have their own
agenda but to continuously define themselves in a reactive opposition to their
stances would be a fatal mistake for groups that claim a stake in progressive
politics. By remaining stuck in a static definition of progressive and
regressive and allying themselves ever more closely with oppressive power, the
liberals may ultimately render their cause irrelevant. For those of us
committed to a just and democratic Pakistan, these dogmatic liberals are as
great a danger as the militants.’

The defining
characteristic of extremist thought is a social imagination based on binary
opposition of ideas, that is, defining and understanding concepts as
diametrically opposed mutually exclusive terms. For instance,
‘democracy’ and ‘Islam’, even though a number of democratic values like
equality of opportunity, public accountability and consensus of opinion are not
alien to Islamic tradition and history. Similarly, secularism and Islam are
seen as water-tight, fixedly opposing ideas, even though secular values like
tolerance and pluralism and discouragement of theocracy are recognized by
Islam. Understanding ‘secular’ to mean ‘that which pertains to the world’ (its
literal meaning) makes it have a fundamental orientation akin to Islam which
chooses to describe itself as ‘Deen’ and not ‘religion.’

The world is seen as black and white with the extremist’s
colourblind vision- a battleground of ideas and ideologies. To minds like
these, theories like the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ have strong appeal and make a
perfect fit. During my research on the responses to the said theory, I
discovered remarkable similarity between the stances of Islamist thinkers and
Western neoconservatives. If the jargon was interchanged, one would not be able
to tell if it was coming from Abu Hamza Al Masri or Daniel Pipes or Anjum Chowdhry or Bill
Maher.

However, it has to be mentioned here that many feared Muslim religious extremists and militants notably Osama bin Laden clearly do not aim rhetoric at belief, values and ideology, but at politics and policy. Secular extremists on the other hand are often virulently Islamophobic, aiming vituperative rhetoric at a belief system, a faith, a people. This kind of an attack aimed at identity and what is most sacred to human beings is intensely provocative and has whipped up a strong backlash from Muslim communities. When secular societies tolerate in their midst maniacs like Terry Jones and Geert Wilders, they add insult to injury, aggravate the hurt and anger and utterly betray the secular principles they claim to uphold. It will not be inaccurate to say that religious extremism in the Muslim world is reactive in nature- a response to the calculated imposition and relentless onslaught of the Western secular order on non Western societies in a reckless manner that disrespects religio-cultural sensitivities, hurts in the softest part. The rise of religious extremism among Muslims has only followed the attempts by developed nations in the Northern-Western hemisphere to globalize what was perceived as a 'superior'culture, civilization and way of life. Understanding this gives an important insight into religious extremism- that it is a response and a reaction articulated by restive conservative populations smothered under the sway of an imposed 'superior' secular order.

This said, religious extremists in Pakistan are distressingly out of
touch with contemporary reality and unfamiliar with its nuances. With a naive
faith in their simplistic black-and-white thinking, alternate perspectives and
counter narratives are met with disdainful rejection and self-righteous
condemnation. A discomfiting ‘cognitive dissonance’ is created when an idea
that does not fit into the subject’s familiar thought pattern is introduced. This
leads to strong reactionary responses to defend and vindicate one’s own
thinking.

This is not only with regard to the religious extremist’s
rejection of secular ideas but also those coming from other denominations and
schools of thought within the extremist’s own religious tradition. Denunciation
of diverse religious opinions is at times so extreme that the one holding differing
views is ‘excommunicated’ and accused of heresy and serious infidelity. The
poet-philosopher Iqbal wrote in a moment of distress, ‘Waaiz e tang nazar ne mujh ko kafir jana / Aur kafir samajhta hai
Musulman hoon mein.’ (The narrow minded preacher considered me an infidel /
While the unbeliever insists that I remain Muslim.)

In the midst of an array of contending ideas, within the
recesses of the extremist’s mind there is perhaps an unconscious awareness of
the untenability of the ideas he blindly holds on to, and this leads to a
strong sense of insecurity and vulnerability which develops into victim
psychology as the subject imagines himself to be pitted against a hostile world
that is out to eradicate the belief that gives him meaning. The following is
part of a post circulated in an Islamic group, pertaining to the USAID
photographic exhibition in Lahore in June this year. The sense of perceived
threat is strong enough to be palpable, as is the urgency to fight back and
defend: “...This is the
most dangerous attack on us. Now, they are going with well directed plan to
take the reactionary factor from our souls! This is the part of NEW WORLD ORDER strategy. Their
final goal is to create a world free of religion and highly secular. This
campaign is the part of BIG PLAN.”

The extremist responds to cognitive
dissonance in one of two ways: aggression, militancy and violence; or a stiff
and unrelenting exclusivism. Exclusivist trends lead a religious community to
ghettoize, shelter itself from corrosive external influences and strengthen an
internal sense of community. This also explains the proliferation of
world-rejecting Islamist groups all over the world.

The extremist takes comfort in erecting
barricades of religiosity to create an insular comfort zone. This leads to
intensified and exaggerated personal assertions of piety that enable the
individual to set himself apart from what is profane with a comforting sense of
moral superiority. Rafia Zakaria studies the revival of the burqa in Pakistan’s
wealthy elite as a symbol of pious exclusivity, which has dwindled into the
‘most fashionable route to paradise’: ‘The revived
burka of the rich begum can, it seems, traverse all the boundaries of
unfettered spending and showmanship, sport crystals and pearls, cost more than
the salaries of maids, chauffeurs and maybe a couple of office clerks combined,
and yet magically invest its wearer with instant purity and piety.’ Exclusivism leads to a
sense of moral responsibility to separate oneself from the depraved and wanton.
This separatism leads to an exaggerated emphasis on the outward, an assertion
of externality and a shift away from the necessary inner spirituality one
expects from the religiously oriented. During my association with religious
groups, I was consistently and unfailingly disillusioned with many apparently
religious individuals who inadvertently displayed a most abysmal inner moral
condition.

The extremist also has no penchant for self-criticism.
The readiness to introspect and engage in self-examination and personal reform
is at the heart of all moral systems and spiritual doctrines, a hallmark of
humility that is central to faith. I can comment with some credibility on this
point, having tried several times in the recent past to express alternative
perspectives on extremist forums on social networking sites. Invariably, the
dissenting voice is beaten back with indignation, and jeered at in most obscene
and unethical ways. Often, the commentator is suspected of harbouring malafide
intentions. Initiating a discussion on such forums therefore is impossible because the
conditions for genuine conversation almost never exist. Members feel insecure
and threatened by alternative perspectives, and respond brashly often in
swaggering and demeaning tones, failing to let go of preconceived notions and
prejudices. The ‘Us and Them’ divide sets to work and seems to be the defining
premise for any discussion. Stubbornness and self-righteousness, coupled with
an unwillingness to listen to another on their own terms, utterly rules out
genuine communication and healthy debate, and makes all such groups terribly
stunted, suffocating and unpromising.

One cannot exclude from the picture the
crucial influence of global politics and contemporary international affairs
which fans extremist sentiment- both religious and anti-religious. Political leaders
in the West have done little to assuage rife sentiments in the Muslim world
after US military adventurism in Afghanistan and Iraq, and its continued
support to Israel which has relentlessly oppressed Palestinians. Misgivings
against the West understandably increase and a reactionary sense of victimhood
is exacerbated given the bare fact of heinous crimes against predominantly
Muslim populations committed by the US and its allies as well as their
insidious politicking that has inflicted terrible damage in Muslim lands. Terms
like ‘Islamic terrorist’, ‘Islamic fundamentalist’ etc have been used liberally
with careless indiscrimination by the global media alongwith biased rhetoric
and stereotyping of the Muslim persona. Shlomo Avineri traces this back to the
ancient mistrust and fear of Islam that has haunted the Western imagination
since before the Crusades: “The
underlying assumption has always been that Islam- as a culture and not just a
religious creed- was primitive, underdeveloped, retrograde, at best stuck in
the memory hole of a medieval splendour out of which it could not disengage
itself without a radical transformation; and this could only be based on
Western, ‘rational’, ‘progressive’ values.”

Muslim
societies in general and youth in particular seethe with a strong sense of
injustice and bitterness which makes them anchor all hope in the revival of the
Islamic Khilafah. The shadow of a Khalifa who would embody the glory and
ascendancy of Islam haunts the Muslim imagination, and its absence transforms
the Khilafah in their collective consciousness into a surreal Neverland from
which Muslims have been exiled through the machinations of the enemy. History
is selectively narrated to reinforce this, ignoring the fact that even a
divinely instituted system is established and driven by far-from-perfect human
beings, and Muslims have done little to raise themselves up to the pristine,
almost otherworldly ideals they nurture.

This selectivity is not just present in
the Muslim historical narrative but also in the juristic tradition of Islam, and
in the scholarly enterprise of the interpretation of religious texts. The
aspects of religion traditionally highlighted and disseminated generally
reflect the sensibility and values of the religious elite and their attitudes
which have over much of Islamic history been patriarchal and parochial. On the
issue of divorce, for instance, two prophetic traditions of equal authenticity
are unequally emphasized: the first which masses know by rote is of how divorce
is the most disliked of the permissible things; the other very rarely known is
how the Prophet (SAW) termed one of the worst sins to be the refusal of divorce
leaving the wife trapped in an unhappy marriage. It is not difficult to guess
why the former tradition enjoys far greater import and is propagated vigorously
while the latter is kept obscured. Which values and whose are privileged
through this selectivity is also obvious. In a book of hadith explanation I
came across the tradition that commanded men not to stop or discourage women
from going to the mosques. The medieval commentator had subtitled it ‘Women
must seek permission from husbands for visiting mosques’, which by any stretch
of imagination was not the explicit order of the hadith, though it clearly was
the preferred inference made by the male commentator.

Berry-picking from religious texts by
ulema makes them guilty of a dishonesty towards the sacred tradition they have
been entrusted with as well as towards the ordinary Muslim who readily and
uncritically accepts what the cleric has to offer.

The problem of clashing extremisms is not
amenable to a simple solution, and is likely to remain for a long time.
However, for the survival of human society, both camps will have to learn to
make major compromises. Both will need to realize that ours is a jostling
planet and that the survival of any group or community lies in learning to give
space, to tolerate and accept the fact that there can and always will be
several contending worldviews, and this diversity characterizes human society
in the postmodern world.

The Qur’an also notes that people will remain different from one another until the end of human existence. It also states that the reality of human diversity is part of the divine wisdom and an intentional purpose of creation: “If thy Lord had so willed, He could have made mankind one people, but they will not cease to dispute . . .” (11:118).

Khalid Abou El Fadl writes, "The Qur’anic celebration and sanctification of human diversity incorporates that diversity into the purposeful pursuit of justice and creates various possibilities for pluralistic commitment in modern Islam. That commitment could be developed into an ethic that respects dissent and honors the right of human beings to be different, including the right to adhere to different religious or nonreligious convictions. At the political level it could be appropriated into a normative stance that considers justice and diversity to be core values that a democratic constitutional order is bound to protect..."

We have to learn to agree to disagree and
yet not lose sight of the common thread that runs through and knits up the
colourful human family regardless of religious or secular orientation. ‘And mankind is but one family. But they
disagree.’ (The Noble Quran, 10:19) The way we educate our young must be
informed by an awareness and appreciation of this commonality and the ethics of
disagreement. In this regard, the ‘Charter of Compassion’ project undertaken by
Karen Armstrong is right on target given the chaotic and frightening times we
are living through and the dark clouds gathering on the horizons. The ‘Us
versus Them’ narrative of political policymakers backed by the
military-industrial complex and echoed by the media needs to be
enthusiastically rejected. An academic study of Islam needs to be undertaken
and encouraged very seriously so as to develop a deeper, insightful and
informed understanding of the evolution of Muslim identity and consciousness,
and the roots of extremism. This will expose and defeat the black-and-white
discourse of the traditionalist seminary, the simplistic nature of which
exercises seductive power on gullible mass mindsets. Scholars who understand
the dimensions and vicissitudes of contemporary society and how religion can
effectively engage with the secular order, who see a vibrant constructive role
for religion and have not lost sight of its potential to harmonize and help create
the necessary consensus of values needed for any society to function must be
heard in this hysterical bedlam of extremisms.

----------------------------------------------------------

The Prophet (may Allah
bless him) stated, “Beware of extremism (or excess) in religion for those
before you only perished due to extremism (or excess) in religion.” [Ahmad,
Musnad]